If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have to say I am very dissapointed how wild shape is implemented in this game many shapes and features are missing.

Furthermore lookingt at the few available shapes in the game most are just extremely weak compared to other options plus I really don't like the smilodon so it is not appealing at all. Why did you go through the trouble and created such beautiful elementals and then made them utterly useless power wise.

I would ask the owlcats to please revamp the druid by rebalancing the existing wild shapes and by adding at least some new unique to the druid shapes that are strong and viable. Because seriously as much as I love the class currently I am playing others as this version of the Druid does not make me want to play one at all.

The available archetypes do not help eighter. The Goliath or Dinosaur Druid would be far more to my liking.

Also the Bard has a horrible spell selection when it comes to attack spells yes I know you could take the flame dancer but I would prefer some offensive spells to select from free of charge. Also the sandman archetype would be much appreciated.

^Probably the fact that the game has like 10 fixed shapes in comparisation to 300+ "animals/plants/elementals" the bestiary offers. I do agree with taverndweller that like 3-4 shapes per size with different abilities would be nice but useless? Hardly. There are a few good choices avaible. Yes elementals are none of those. :(

Also you complain about a bards lack of offensive spells...... You do realize that Bards usally only have like 3 areas of spells right?
-buffs all around, they excell at those.
-a few support gimmicks like conjurations, additional movement speeds etc and lastly
-debuffs that disable your enemies somehow. Those are the only "offensive-like spells they have"

I did not feel those debuffs lacking. But some sure could have a better rules implementation (euphoriy tranquility for example is pretty useless compared to the PF-version).

Ok but it is impossible to implement too many druid shapes. Druids in this game are already better than in all D&D like computer games since Baldur's Gate 1. Of course it could always be better but what we have so far is already pretty good.

They are not as good as in NWN and NWN2, imo. In general I've had the impression that my MotB druidess was far more powerful, with a better spell selection and more varied shapes. On the other hand, Pathfinder has more interesting animal companions to choose from. So I agree with the op that a druidic archetype which focuses more on shapeshifting or adds new shapes, like the draconic druid, would be great. My preferred choice would be the dinosaur druid, of course, but that would require lots of new models for the dinos, so it's unlikely to happen. The dragonkind / dragon models are already in the game, however.

They are not as good as in NWN and NWN2, imo. In general I've had the impression that my MotB druidess was far more powerful, with a better spell selection and more varied shapes. On the other hand, Pathfinder has more interesting animal companions to choose from. So I agree with the op that a druidic archetype which focuses more on shapeshifting or adds new shapes, like the draconic druid, would be great. My preferred choice would be the dinosaur druid, of course, but that would require lots of new models for the dinos, so it's unlikely to happen. The dragonkind / dragon models are already in the game, however.

MotB was a lvl 21+ adventure. Not fair to compare with lvl 1 do 20 adventure. Also MotB(and NWN2) was pathetically easy game with almost 0 challenging encounters. Anyone could be good in that game.

And on top of that MotB was 3.5e and druid shapeshifting was nerfed in Pathfinder.

^Which ones are you refering to?
Neither wildshape itself allows to change into regular form-of-the-dragon nor is the spell in the druids spell list.
An archetype may have it sure, but the core class has no accesss to it.

Only the exotic form-of-the-dragon is on the druids list. And those are from LoD I seriously doubt they implemented that book.

^Which ones are you refering to?
Neither wildshape itself allows to change into regular form-of-the-dragon nor is the spell in the druids spell list.
An archetype may have it sure, but the core class has no accesss to it.

Only the exotic form-of-the-dragon is on the druids list. And those are from LoD I seriously doubt they implemented that book.

Thanks! I've mistakenly thought form-of-the- exotic dragon are the dragon form spells they've implemented in the game. Well, powerwise, Druid wildshapes have no hopes to compete with what wizards get then. :( I'd rather nature fang get implemented if wildshape aren't going to stand on its own. Draconic druid is cool but I doubt too that we are going to see more subclasses.

Really like the concept of druid, but animal companions aside, their spells and abilities seems to be inferior in this game, even animal companion are shared with cleric with animal domain.

However, there is another thing I don't understand: why druid doesn't get woodland stride but sylvan sorcerer does?

\
Really like the concept of druid, but animal companions aside, their spells and abilities seems to be inferior in this game, even animal companion are shared with cleric with animal domain.

For me it wasn't so much that they're inferior, but rather that the only feature that feels really unique to druids - their wild shapes - wasn't that good by comparison. Other classes get archetypes that share the best druidic features (sylvan sorcerers, sacred huntsmasters, herald callers), meanwhile wizards/sorcerers have access to better shapes with greater polymorph and can cast transformation on top of that.